Analyse du concept de la participation sociale : définitions, cas d'illustration, dimensions de l'activité et indicateurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social participation is an integral part of human life. This concept has appeared in recent health literature and is considered one of the main goals of rehabilitation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to clarify the concept of social participation and its applicability in mental health. The concept of social participation is distinguished from other related concepts and measurement tools assessing social participation are examined. METHODS: The analysis was done according to the Walker and Avant (1995) method. FINDINGS: The analysis identified three attributes of social participation: 7) participation implies an action from the individual; 2) this action contributes to others; 3) personal and societal dimensions need to be considered. Based on the examination of 77 measurement tools, there appears to be operational consensus that social participation is the realization of activities. The most often used indicators include amount and frequency of activities. IMPLICATIONS: The Assessment of Life Habits and the Participation Measure for Post-Acute Care appear to be the most comprehensive assessments available to measure social participation in mental health that are currently available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".